Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 57-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 1 of 371 PageID #: 3758
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 57-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 1 of 371 PagelD #: 3758
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1A
`EXHIBIT 1A
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL-OUTSIDE COUNSEL
`CONFIDENTIAL-OUTSIDE COUNSEL
`ONLY
`ONLY
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 57-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 2 of 371 PageID #: 3759
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 57-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 2 of 371 PagelD #: 3759
`
`REDACTED
`REDACTED
`IN ITS
`IN ITS
`ENTIRETY
`ENTIRETY
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 57-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 3 of 371 PageID #: 3760
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 57-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 3 of 371 PagelD #: 3760
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1B
`EXHIBIT 1B
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL-OUTSIDE COUNSEL
`CONFIDENTIAL-OUTSIDE COUNSEL
`ONLY
`ONLY
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 57-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 4 of 371 PageID #: 3761
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 57-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 4 of 371 PagelD #: 3761
`
`REDACTED
`REDACTED
`IN ITS
`IN ITS
`ENTIRETY
`ENTIRETY
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 57-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 5 of 371 PageID #: 3762
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 57-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 5 of 371 PagelD #: 3762
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 2A
`EXHIBIT 2A
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL-OUTSIDE COUNSEL
`CONFIDENTIAL-OUTSIDE COUNSEL
`ONLY
`ONLY
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 57-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 6 of 371 PageID #: 3763
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 57-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 6 of 371 PagelD #: 3763
`
`REDACTED
`REDACTED
`IN ITS
`IN ITS
`ENTIRETY
`ENTIRETY
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 57-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 7 of 371 PageID #: 3764
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 57-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 7 of 371 PagelD #: 3764
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 2B
`EXHIBIT 2B
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL-OUTSIDE COUNSEL
`CONFIDENTIAL-OUTSIDE COUNSEL
`ONLY
`ONLY
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 57-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 8 of 371 PageID #: 3765
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 57-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 8 of 371 PagelD #: 3765
`
`REDACTED
`REDACTED
`IN ITS
`IN ITS
`ENTIRETY
`ENTIRETY
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 57-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 9 of 371 PageID #: 3766
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 57-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 9 of 371 PagelD #: 3766
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 2C
`EXHIBIT 2C
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 57-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 10 of 371 PageID #: 3767
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 57-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 10 of 371 PagelD #: 3767
`
`REDACTED
`REDACTED
`IN ITS
`IN ITS
`ENTIRETY
`ENTIRETY
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 57-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 11 of 371 PageID #: 3768
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 57-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 11 of 371 PagelD #: 3768
`
`EXHIBIT 2D
`EXHIBIT 2D
`
`CONFIDENTIAL-OUTSIDE COUNSEL
`CONFIDENTIAL-OUTSIDE COUNSEL
`ONLY
`ONLY
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 57-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 12 of 371 PageID #: 3769
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 57-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 12 of 371 PagelD #: 3769
`
`REDACTED
`REDACTED
`IN ITS
`IN ITS
`ENTIRETY
`ENTIRETY
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 57-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 13 of 371 PageID #: 3770
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 57-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 13 of 371 PagelD #: 3770
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 3A
`EXHIBIT 3A
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 57-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 14 of 371 PageID #: 3771
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 57-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 14 of 371 PagelD #: 3771
`
`REDACTED
`REDACTED
`IN ITS
`IN ITS
`ENTIRETY
`ENTIRETY
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 57-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 15 of 371 PageID #: 3772
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 57-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 15 of 371 PagelD #: 3772
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 3B
`EXHIBIT 3B
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 57-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 16 of 371 PageID #: 3773
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 57-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 16 of 371 PagelD #: 3773
`
`REDACTED
`REDACTED
`IN ITS
`IN ITS
`ENTIRETY
`ENTIRETY
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 57-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 17 of 371 PageID #: 3774
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 57-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 17 of 371 PagelD #: 3774
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 3C
`EXHIBIT 3C
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 57-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 18 of 371 PageID #: 3775
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 57-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 18 of 371 PagelD #: 3775
`
`REDACTED
`REDACTED
`IN ITS
`IN ITS
`ENTIRETY
`ENTIRETY
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 57-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 19 of 371 PageID #: 3776
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 57-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 19 of 371 PagelD #: 3776
`
`EXHIBIT 4A
`EXHIBIT 4A
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 57-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 20 of 371 PageID #: 3777
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 57-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 20 of 371 PagelD #: We
`
`(
`
`awe
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`i
`
`Appl. No. 06/629,042
`ExpressMail Label EV 335522411 US
`oe = uh
`pe
`My
`4
`$8
`&
`\,
`wl
`Nie DRE
`APPLICATION OF: FREDB, HOLT£7AL.
`SL
`APPLICATIONNO.:
`—09/629,042
`FILED:
`©
`JuLy 31, 2000
`For; DISTRIBUTED GAME ENVIRONMENT
` RECEIVED
`Amendment Under 37 C.F.R.§1.111
`SEP 15 2003
`Technology Center 2190
`
`ney Docket No, 030048009US
`}
`Ff ylA
`PATENT
`es)
`EXAMINER: BRADLEY E, EDELMAN
`ARTUNIT;
`2153
`Conr,No:
`4750
`
`'
`
`B
`
`;
`
`:Sus ee
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Sir:
`
`In response to the Office Action dated May 21, 2003, please amend the above-identified
`
`application as follows:
`Amendments to the Claimsare reflected in the listing of the Claims which begins on
`
`page 2 ofthis paper,
`Amendments to the Drawings begin on page 6 of this paper and include attached
`
`drawing sheets.
`
`Remarks/Arguments begin on page 7 ofthis paper.
`
`09/12/2003 BSAYAST! 00000005 039629042
`
`02 Fora202
`
`44.00 OP
`
`(03004.8009/OA 2003-05-21 RESPONSE.DOC]
`
`l
`
`I.
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 57-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 21 of 371 PageID #: 3778
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 57-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 21 of 371 PagelD #:
`3778
`
`\“Appl. No, 09/629,042
`
`.
`
` 3tney Docket No, 030048009US
`
`Amendments to the Claims
`
`This listing of claims will replace all prior versions, and listings, of claims in the
`
`application:
`
`
`l,
`
`(Currently amended) Acomputer network for providing a game environmentfor a
`
`plurality of participants, each participant having connections to at
`
`least
`
`three neighbor
`
`participants, wherein an originating participant sends data to the other participants by sending the
`
`data through each of its connections to its neighbor participants and wherein each participant
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`further
`
`
`
`
`
`\ wherein the network is m-regular, w! participantsofeachi mber of neighbor
`
`sends data that it receives from a neighbor participant to its other neighbor participants,
`
`|
`
`
`
`icipant
`
`and
`
`her
`
`rein
`
`the. number
`
`of
`
`participants
`
`is at least
`
`two
`
`greater than m th
`
`resulting in a non-complete graph.
`
`2.
`
`(Original) The computer network of claim | wherein each participant is connected
`
`to 4 otherparticipants,
`
`3,
`
`(Original) The computer network of claim 1 wherein each participant is connected
`
`to an even number of other participants.
`
`1
`
`Ss
`
`|: (Cancelled)
`H& (Original) The computer network ofclaim | wherein the network is m-connected,
`
`where m is the numberof neighbor participants of each participant.
`
`[03004.B8009/OA 2003-05-21 RESPONSE.DOC]
`
`2
`44
`
`hs
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 57-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 22 of 371 PageID #: 3779
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 57-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 22 of 371 PagelD #:
`3779
`
`Appl. No. 09/629,042
`
`.
`
`_amey Dacket No. 030048009US
`
`Applicants' Amendments and Arguments:
`
`Applicants have significantly amended independent Claims 1 and 14.
`
`In addition, new
`
`independent Claims 17 and 19 have been added which applicants believe should be allowable over
`
`In view of the substantial amendments
`the cited priorart in view of the remarks set forth below.
`made to Claim 14 to includeall of the limitations of Claim 1, the arguments will be primarily
`
`directed towards the Alagar reference which was used to reject Claims 1-13.
`
`First, one important aspect of the Alagar reference is that the flooding protocoldisclosed
`
`in Alagar dictates that when a nodereceives a message, that node will rebroadcast that message to
`
`all of its neighbors. See Alagar at page 239, column 1, lines 13-15, Specifically, the Alagar
`
`reference at page 239, column 2,lines 7-23 dictates that whenever a host(i.e., node) receives a
`
`message, that message is broadcastto all of its neighbors,
`
`In contrast,
`the present claimed invention of Claim | dictates and requires that each
`participant only eabeinidvssty received messages to its neighbors other than the neighbor from
`
`which the node received the message. The Alagar reference requires a larger number of messages
`
`to be broadcast. For example, if m is the number of nodes and N is the number of neighbors for
`
`each node, then the total number of messagesis mx N,
`In contrast, by limiting the strona to “other neighbors," this reduces the number of
`
`messages to be broadcast to (m-1)N + 1. For large networks, the saved bandwidth can be
`
`significant. For this sole reason alone, Claim 1 has a requirement of "other neighbors" which is
`
`not fairly shown in the Alagar reference. Therefore, Claim 1 andall dependent claims therefrom
`are in condition for allowance,
`
`Secondly, the Alagarreference teaches the indiscriminant linking with neighbors regardless
`
`of the number oftotal neighbors that are capable of being connected. For example, Alagar
`
`[03004.8009/0A 2003-05-21 RESPONSE.00C]
`
`a)
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 57-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 57-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 23 of 371 PageID #: 3780
`
`‘ Appl. No, 09/629,042
`
`»
`
`smey Docket No. 030048009US
`
`teaches that the definition of a "neighbor"is any two mobile hosts that can "hear" each other. See
`
`Alagar at page 238, column 1, lines 5-6.
`
`In other words,there is no "regularity" to the network
`
`formed by Alagar because each of the nodes can link to as few as one neighboror a potentially
`
`extremely large number of neighbors. The only limitation is that the node will link and classify as
`
`a neighbor any other node that is within hearing distance. This is precisely the opposite of the
`
`amended claimed invention. Claim 1 as amended requires that each participant in the network
`
`connects to and formsa neighbor bond to exactly an m number of neighbors.
`
`Independent claims
`
`14 and 17 contain similar limitations.
`
`requires that the network is "in a stable 4-regular state.” For this reason, the claims are allowable
`
`over thecited priorart.
`
`Third, and yet another independent reason for allowing theclaims, as amended, over the
`
`Alagarpatent, is that the claims as amended now require that the computer network so formed Is
`not a "complete graph." A complete graph 1s a network that is characterized byN=m+1. A
`
`"complete graph" in graph theory is that each node has a connection to every other nodein the
`
`network. Thus, Figure 1 of the Alagar reference shows a complete graph. Each of the nodes has
`
`(03004,8009/0A 2003-05-21 RESPONSE,DOC|
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 57-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 24 of 371PagelD#]3781
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 57-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 24 of 371 PageID #: 3781
`
`Appl. No. 09/629,042
`
`.
`
` émey Docket No. 030048009US
`
`a connection to every other node in the network. Obviously, for a five-node network, this will -
`require fout communications connectionsfor each node,
`
`Claims 1 and 17 have been amended torecite that there are at least two more nodes than
`there are maximum number of neighbors, For example, Claim 17 requires that for a 4-regular
`
`network, there are at least six participants. Claim 1 requires that the parameter N is at least two
`
`greater than the parameter m. Alagar does not show this limitation whatsoever,
`
`In fact, the only
`
`
`
` Alagarreference. This combination has been shown to producean efficient and stable computer
`
`network. Claim 19 is specifically directed to this aspect of the invention.
`
`In view of the foregoing,
`
`the claims pending in the application comply with the
`
`requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112 and patentably define overthe prior art. A Notice of Allowance
`
`is, therefore, respectfully requested.
`
`If the Examiner has any questions or believes a telephone
`
`conference would expedite prosecution ofthis application, the Examiner is encouragedto call the
`
`undersigned at (206) 359-6488.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`Perkins Coie LLP
`
`Date: 7, fd/ 73 keChun M. Ng
`
`Registration No. 36,878
`
`Correspondence Address:
`Customer No. 25096
`Perkins Coie LLP
`P.O. Box 1247
`Seattle, Washington 98111-1247
`(206) 359-8000
`
`[03004.8009/0A 2003-05-21 RESPONSE.DOC]
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 57-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 25 of 371 PageID #: 3782
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 57-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 25 of 371 PagelD #: 3782
`
`EXHIBIT 4B
`EXHIBIT 4B
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 57-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 26 of 371 PageID #: 3783
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 57-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 26 of 371 PagelD #: 3783
`
`.
`
`Appl. No. 09/628,043
`
`Attomt Socket No. 030048007US
`
`Amendments to the Claims
`
`This listing of claims will
`
`replace all prior versions, and listings, of claims in the
`
`application:
`
`Se
`
`1,
`
`(Currently amended) A computer network for providing an information delivery
`
`service for a plurality of participants, each participant having connections to at
`
`least
`
`three
`
`neighbor participants, wherein an originating participant sends data to the other participants by
`
`| \
`
`participant
`
`sends data that
`
`it
`
`receives from a neighbor participant
`
`to its other neighbor
`
`sendingthedatathrougheachofitsconnectionstoitsneighborparticipantsandwhereineach
`
`
`2.
`
`(Original) The computer network ofclaim 1 wherein each participant is connected
`
`to 4 other participants.
`
`3,
`
`(Original) The computer network of claim | wherein each participant is connected
`
`to an even number ofother participants.
`
`
`
`4.
`
`(Cancelled)
`
`4 (Original) Thecomputernetworkofclaim 1 whereinthenetworkism-connected;———- °
`
`
`( ")weremisthenumberofneighborparticipantsofeachparticipant.
`
`ee ==
`
`_
`
`(03004-B007/Amend_6_20_03,doc}
`
`2
`
`_—
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 57-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 27 of 371 PageID #: 3784
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 57-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 27 of 371 PagelD #: 3784
`
`Appi. No, 09/629,043
`
`Altorne, Jocket No. 030048007US
`
`Next, the Examiner rejects Claims 1-8, 10, and 12 under 35 U.S.C, § 102 as being
`
`anticipated by the Alagar et al. reference, The Examiner argues that Alagar discloses a plurality
`
`of nodes that form a network and that the data is sent to the other participants by a flooding
`
`technique.
`
`Applicants respectfully request reconsideration.
`
`Appli
`
`if
`
`ments
`
`an
`
`nts;
`
`Applicants have significantly amended independent Claims 1 and 14.
`
`In addition, new
`
`independent Claim 17 has been added which applicants believe should be allowable over the cited
`
`prior art in view of the remarks set forth below.
`
`In view of the substantial amendments made to
`
`Claim 14 to include all of the limitations of Claim 1, the arguments will be primarily directed
`
`towards the Alagar reference which was used to reject Claims 1-13.
`
`First, one important aspect of the Alagar referenceis that the flooding protocol disclosed
`
`in Alagar dictates that when a node receives a message, that nodewill rebroadcast that message to
`
`all of its neighbors. See Alagar at page 239, column |, lines 13-15. Specifically, the Alagar
`
`reference at page 239, column 2,lines 7-23 dictates that whenever a host(i.e., node) receives a
`
`message, that message is broadcastto all ofits neighbors.
`
`In contrast, the present claimed invention of Claim 1 dictates and requires that each
`
`participant only rebroadcasts received messages to its neighbors other than the neighbor from
`
`which the message was originally transmitted from. The Alagar reference requires a larger
`
`number of messages to be broadcast. For example, if m is the number of nodes and N is the
`
`numberof neighbors for each node, then the total number of messages is m x N.
`
`In contrast, by limiting the rebroadcast ta "other neighbors," this reduces the number of
`
`messages to be broadcast to (m-1)N + 1. For large networks, the saved bandwidth can be
`¢
`
`[09004-8007/Amend_6_20_03.doc}
`
`9
`
`!
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 57-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 28 of 371 PageID #: 3785
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 57-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 28 of 371 PagelD #: 3785
`
`Appl. No, 09/629,043
`
`Attome, Socket No. 030048007US
`
`significant. For this sole reason alone, Claim 1 has a requirement of "other neighbors" which is
`
`not fairly shown in the Alagar reference. Therefore, Claim 1 and all dependent claims therefrom
`
`are in condition for allowance.
`
`Secondly, the Alagar reference teaches the indiscriminantlinking with neighbors regardless
`
`of the number of total neighbors that are capable of being connected. For example, Alagar
`
`teaches that the definition ofa "neighbor" is any two mobile hosts that can "hear" each other. See
`
`Alagar at page 238, column 1, lines 5-6. In other words, there is no "regularity" to the network
`
`formed by Alagar because each of the nodes can link to as few as one neighboror a potentially
`
`extremely large number of neighbors. Theonly limitation is that the node will link and classify as
`
`a neighbor any other nodethat is within hearing distance. This is precisely the opposite of the
`
`amended claimed invention. Claim 1 as amended requires that each participant in the network
`
`connects to and forms a neighbor bondto exactly an m number ofneighbors.
`
`Independentclaims
`
`14 and 17 contain similar limitations.
`
`
`
`
`
`rk, Furthermore, Claim 17
`
`requires that the network is "in a stable 4-regular state.” For this reason, the claims are allowable
`
`over the cited priorart.
`
`[03004-8007/Amand_8.20_03.doe}
`
`10
`
`x
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 57-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 29 of 371 PageID #: 3786
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 57-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 29 of 371 PagelD #: 3786
`
`Appl. No. 09/629,043
`
`Atlorm.
`
`Jocket No. 030048007US
`
`Third, and yet another independent reason for allowing the claims, as amended, over the
`
`Alagar patent, is that the claims as amended now require that the computer network so formed is
`
`not a "complete graph." A complete graphis a network that is characterized by N=m+1. A
`
`"complete graph" in graph theory is that each node has a connection to every other node inthe
`
`network. Thus, Figure 1 ofthe Alagar reference shows a complete graph. Each ofthe nodes has
`
`a connection to every other node in the network. Obviously, for a five-node network, this will
`
`require four communications connections for each node.
`
`Claims 1 and 17 have been amended to recite that there are at least two more nodes than
`
`there are maximum number of neighbors. For example, Claim 17 requires that for a 4-regular
`
`network, there are at least six participants, Claim 1 requires that the parameter N is at least two
`
`greater than the parameter m. Alagar does not showthis limitation whatsoever.
`
`In fact, the only
`
`
`
`In view of the foregoing,
`
`the claims pending in the application comply with the
`
`requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112 and patentably define over the prior art. A Notice of Allowance
`
`is, therefore, respectfully requested.
`
`If the Examiner has any questions or believes a telephone
`
`conference would expedite prosecution ofthis application, the Examiner is encouraged to call the
`
`undersigned at (206) 359-6488.
`
`[02004-8007/Amand__20_03.doo}
`
`11
`
`Ik
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 57-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 30 of 371 PageID #: 3787
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 57-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 30 of 371 PagelD #: 3787
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 5A
`EXHIBIT 5A
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 57-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 31 of 371 PageID #: 3788
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________
`
`ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC.,
`ELECTRONIC ARTS INC.,
`TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE, INC.,
`2K SPORTS, INC., and
`ROCKSTAR GAMES, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ACCELERATION BAY, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`________________
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01951
`Patent 6,714,966 B1
`________________
`
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO PETITION
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 57-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 32 of 371 PageID #: 3789
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2015-01951 (U.S. Patent No. 6,714,966)
`
`II. THE ‘966 PATENT IS DIRECTED TO A COMPUTER NETWORK
`WITH AN m-REGULAR, INCOMPLETE GRAPH TOPOLOGY
`
`As discussed in the Background of the Invention section of the ‘966 patent
`
`(the “Background”), point-to-point network protocols, such as UNIX pipes,
`
`TCP/IP, and UDP, allow processes on different computers to communicate via
`
`point-to-point connections. Ex. 1001 at 00042, 1:44-46. However, the
`
`interconnection of all participants using point-to-point connections, while
`
`theoretically possible, does not scale well as the number of participants grows. Id.
`
`at 1:46-49. Because each participating process needs to manage its direct
`
`connections to all other participating processes, the number of possible participants
`
`is limited to the number of direct connections a given machine, or process, can
`
`support. Id. at 1:49-55.
`
`On the other end of the connectivity spectrum are client/server middleware
`
`systems that have a single server that does not communicate with any other server
`
`and coordinates all communications between various clients who are sharing the
`
`information. Id. at 1:58-60. These systems rely on the sole server to function as a
`
`central authority for controlling access to shared resources. Id. at 1:60-62. Such
`
`systems are also not well suited to sharing of information among many
`
`participants, but for different reasons than point-to-point networks. When a client
`
`stores information to be shared at the server, every other client must poll the server
`
`to determine that the new information is being shared, which places a very high
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 57-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 33 of 371 PageID #: 3790
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2015-01951 (U.S. Patent No. 6,714,966)
`
`overhead on the communications network. Id. at 1:65-2:4. Alternatively, each
`
`client can register a callback with the server, which the server then invokes when
`
`new information is available to be shared. Id. at 2:4-6. However, such callback
`
`techniques create a performance bottleneck. A single server needs to effect a
`
`callback to each and every client whenever new information is to be shared. In
`
`addition, the reliability of the entire information sharing depends upon that of a
`
`single server; failure at the single server prevents all communications between any
`
`clients. Id. at 2:7-13.
`
`The ‘966 patent is one of several patents obtained by Boeing directed to its
`
`novel computer network technology that solved the central bottleneck problem of
`
`client/server networks, as well as the problems of management complexity and
`
`limited supported connections of point-to-point networks. More particularly, the
`
`‘966 patent describes using a computer network and information delivery service
`
`that overlay a point-to-point network where each node (participant) is connected to
`
`some -- but not all -- neighboring network nodes. For example, Fig. 2 of the ‘966
`
`patent, reproduced below, shows a network of twenty participants, where each
`
`participant is connected to four other participants:
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 57-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 34 of 371 PageID #: 3791
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2015-01951 (U.S. Patent No. 6,714,966)
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001 at 00004.
`
`Such a network arrangement, where each node in the network, is connected
`
`to the same number of other nodes, is known as an m-regular network. Id. at
`
`00043, 4:38-39. That is, a network is m-regular when each node is connected to m
`
`other nodes and a computer would become disconnected from the information
`
`delivery service only if all m of the connections to its neighbouring nodes fail. Id.
`
`at 4:40-42. In Fig. 2 above, m=4 because each node is connected to four other
`
`nodes of the network. A network is said to be m-connected when it would take a
`
`failure of m computers to divide the graph into disjoint sub-graphs, i.e., separate
`
`information delivery services. Id. at 4:42-45.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 57-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 35 of 371 PageID #: 3792
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2015-01951 (U.S. Patent No. 6,714,966)
`
`A key attribute of the computer network claimed in the ‘966 patent is that
`
`the number of network participants N (in Fig. 2, this is twenty) is always greater
`
`than the number of connections m to each participant (in Fig. 2, this is four). Id. at
`
`00004, Fig. 2. In fact, under the ‘966 patent claims, N must always be m+2 or
`
`greater: N ≥ m+2. This network topology, where no node is connected to every
`
`other node, is an incomplete graph.
`
`Figs. 3A and 3B of the ‘966 patent, reproduced below, illustrate the process
`
`of breaking connections between nodes (i.e., “edges”) in a primitive, complete
`
`graph network to add new node Z to build the inventive incomplete graph.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 00005.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 57-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 36 of 371 PageID #: 3793
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2015-01951 (U.S. Patent No. 6,714,966)
`
`connections. Id. at 00045, 7:26-32. A computer that receives the message then
`
`sends the message to its neighbors (but not to the computer that provided the
`
`message) using the point-to-point connections. Id. at 7:33-45. In this way, the
`
`message is propagated to each computer using the underlying network, thus
`
`broadcasting the message to each computer over a logical broadcast channel.
`
`It should be appreciated that the invention as described and claimed in the
`
`‘966 patent leverages the weaving together of (i) a fabric of point-to-point
`
`connections into an m-regular network with (ii) an incomplete graph topology to
`
`achieve scalable and reliable, wide-area, peer-to-peer communications among
`
`computer processes with high connectivity and minimal latency.
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Patent Owner respectfully submits, without prejudice, that, for purposes of
`
`this Patent Owner Preliminary Response, it is not generally necessary to dispute
`
`Petitioners’ proposals for construing the ‘966 patent claims -- especially, given that
`
`all of Petitioners’ alleged grounds for unpatentability fail for at least the reason that
`
`Lin is not prior art. However, Patent Owner does point out that Petitioners’
`
`proposed construction for “means for identifying a broadcast channel for a topic
`
`of interest” is incorrect as it improperly zones in on only one exemplary
`
`embodiment to the exclusion of others. See Funai Elec. Co. v. Daewoo Elecs.
`
`Corp., 616 F.3d 1357, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (rejecting claim construction that
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 57-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 37 of 371 PageID #: 3794
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2015-01951 (U.S. Patent No. 6,714,966)
`
`excluded an example embodiment). It is more correct to identify the structure that
`
`performs the recited function as the information delivery service application. As
`
`set forth in the ‘966 patent:
`
`In one embodiment, an information delivery service application is
`implemented using the broadcast channel. The information delivery
`service allows participants to monitor messages as they are broadcast
`on the broadcast channel.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 00049, 16:25-28.
`
`Accordingly, the proper structure of “means for identifying a broadcast channel
`
`for a topic of interest” is an “information delivery service application.” Patent
`
`Owner also notes for the record its disagreement with Petitioners’ suggestion that
`
`the elements of claim 13 recited in means-plus-function terms are indefinite.
`
`IV. THE PETITION SHOULD BE DENIED – THERE IS NO
`REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT PETITIONERS
`WILL PREVAIL
`A.
`
`Petitioners Are Aware Of The Fatal Defect
`In Their Petition: Lin Is Not Prior Art
`
`Petitioners have seen the writing on the wall. The Lin reference, which is
`
`critical to all of Petitioners’ grounds for unpatentability in the Petition, is, as
`
`Petitioners feared, not prior art to the ‘966 patent under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 57-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 38 of 371 PageID #: 3795
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 57-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 38 of 371 PagelD #: 3795
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 5B
`EXHIBIT 5B
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 57-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 39 of 371 PageID #: 3796
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________
`
`ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC.,
`ELECTRONIC ARTS INC.,
`TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE, INC.,
`2K SPORTS, INC.,
`ROCKSTAR GAMES, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ACCELERATION BAY, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`________________
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01964
`Patent 6,829,634 B1
`________________
`
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO PETITION
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 57-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 40 of 371 PageID #: 3797
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2015-01964 (U.S. Patent No. 6,829,634)
`
`given the tactical liberties taken by Petitioners, Patent Owner respectfully requests
`
`that the Board deny inter partes review as to all grounds for unpatentability alleged
`
`in both petitions.
`
`II. THE ‘634 PATENT IS DIRECTED TO A NON-ROUTING TABLE
`BASED COMPUTER NETWORK WITH AN m-REGULAR,
`INCOMPLETE GRAPH TOPOLOGY
`
`As discussed in the Background of the Invention section of the ‘634 patent
`
`(the “Background”), point-to-point network protocols, such as UNIX pipes,
`
`TCP/IP, and UDP, allow processes on different computers to communicate via
`
`point-to-point connections. Ex. 1001 at 00042, 1:46-48. However, the
`
`interconnection of all participants using point-to-point connections, while
`
`theoretically possible, does not scale well as the number of participants grows. Id.
`
`at 1:48-51. Because each participating process needs to manage its direct
`
`connections to all other participating processes, the number of possible participants
`
`is limited to the number of direct connections a given machine, or process, can
`
`support. Id. at 1:51-59.
`
`On the other end of the connectivity spectrum are client/server middleware
`
`systems that have a single server that does not communicate with any other server
`
`and coordinates all communications between various clients who are sharing the
`
`information. Id. at 1:60-62. These systems rely on the sole server to function as a
`
`central authority for controlling access to shared resources. Id. at 1:62-64. Such
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 57-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 41 of 371 PageID #: 3798
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2015-01964 (U.S. Patent No. 6,829,634)
`
`systems are also not well suited to sharing of information among many
`
`participants, but for different reasons than point-to-point networks. When a client
`
`stores information to be shared at the server, every other client must poll the server
`
`to determine that the new information is being shared, which places a very high
`
`overhead on the communications network. Id. at 2:2-6. Alternatively, each client
`
`can register a callback with the server, which the server then invokes when new
`
`information is available to be shared. Id. at 2:6-8. However, such callback
`
`techniques create a performance bottleneck. A single server needs to effect a
`
`callback to each and every client whenever new information is to be shared. In
`
`addition, the reliability of the entire information sharing depends upon that of a
`
`single server; failure at the single server prevents all communications between any
`
`clients. Id. at 2:9-15.
`
`The ‘634 patent is one of several patents obtained by Boeing directed to its
`
`novel computer network technology that solved the central bottleneck problem of
`
`client/server networks, as well as the problems of management complexity and
`
`limited supported connections of point-to-point networks. More particularly, the
`
`‘634 patent describes using a non-routing table based computer network and
`
`broadcast channel that overlay a point-to-point network where each node
`
`(participant) is connected to some -- but not a